Characterizing the acts of righteous gentiles: a matter of duty or supererogation?

Abstract

This paper examines the frequently made claim by Holocaust rescuers, otherwise known as "righteous gentiles," that they merely fulfilled their duty when they endeavored to save the Jews from Hitler and are consequently deserving of no special praise for having attempted to do so. It then argues, against the prevailing view, that there are compelling reasons for trusting this testimony. Finally, it relates this finding to contemporary discussions in ethical theory, in particular challenging J. O. Urmson's widely influential claim that moral heroes who insist on the obligatory nature of their heroic conduct do not offer this judgment as a "piece of objective reporting," but as a conviction that reflects a personal ideal. By contrast, this paper contends that the hero's understanding of duty is not illusory, but, on the contrary, more enhanced than that of the majority owing to its origins in the hero's virtuous character.